Is religion a mental disorder?

reply to post by Murgatroid


Thanks for those links which I found greatly relevant Murgatroid. This is the time when much is being revealed and many of the veils are being shattered. Soon much more data with regards to this plot will be coming forth and breaking down the earth's amnesiac strongholds to a point of course.

This will be blown out of the water and all will see just how deep the rabbit hole really is. "They" have contaminated and intercepted everything in this world/matrix. The question is learning how to discern between the checkered squares.

Threads are soon coming in what is a combined effort in the study and exposing of such.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

The manuscript evidence for the Bible is much more compelling than any other ancient document;

What load of garbage! More compelling? What does that even mean?

What about the tomes of the historical documentation of Josephus? Not compelling? How about Livy's History of Rome? Not compelling? The Documentation of Gallic Wars, by Julius Caesar? Not compelling?

As far as the New Testament being a documentation of truth, there is no supporting evidence for any of the biblical stories, and there are numerous, too numerous to mention, discrepancies in dates, lineage and narratives and obvious interpolations.

Well of course not..what an absurd notion.

Stormdancer777
Everything is a mental disorder.

As a Christian, I can vouch for the fact that there a lot of folks out there that are what I call "Church Crazy". We wouldn't have been given Life if we weren't meant to live it. Even something as vital to life as a drink of water can be taken to life-threatening extremes.

I made serious waves in our last home church when I joked that I wasn't sure I wanted to go to Heaven. Who wants to spend Eternity with a bunch of strangers??

Most human beings need rituals and a god to worship in order to feel happy,belonged,united and in peace with themselves. Most of us would wonder around endlessly if we didn't have a mission of some sort to complete in our life.Our minds have developed to have created virtual worlds,facts and lives to keep us focused,alert and at the same time entertained.. Of course there are always some who take advantage of this phenomenal and use it to suit their own agendas,history is full of such people...Perhaps yes you could call it some kind of disorder but aren't all other methods, beliefs or ideologies the same thing.

reply to post by EnPassant

Wars are not usually caused by religion. WW1 was caused by a secret society called The Black Hand. They organised the assassination of Ferdinand. WW2 was caused by you know who, grabbing land. Other secular wars include Vietnam Nam, civil war in China 1937, war of independence, Korean War etc.

I agree up to a point. Without the people on board the war doesn't actually go forward, though. The secret elite (whomever they be) use religion, patriotism, and propaganda to exploit the peoples sentiments about rallying.

Throw in a "crisis" and its the perfect call to arms.

Rally around the flag, boys. 'God and Country' and 'God is on our side'. Their religion is evil. Look at how the American media and church paint Islam:

Muslim- Extremists

Radical- Islam

Islam- ism

Religion serves the system well… both ways.

intrptr
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Wars are not usually caused by religion. WW1 was caused by a secret society called The Black Hand. They organised the assassination of Ferdinand. WW2 was caused by you know who, grabbing land. Other secular wars include Vietnam Nam, civil war in China 1937, war of independence, Korean War etc.

I agree up to a point. Without the people on board the war doesn't actually go forward, though. The secret elite (whomever they be) use religion, patriotism, and propaganda to exploit the peoples sentiments about rallying.

Throw in a "crisis" and its the perfect call to arms.

Rally around the flag, boys. 'God and Country' and 'God is on our side'. Their religion is evil. Look at how the American media and church paint Islam:

Muslim- Extremists

Radical- Islam

Islam- ism

Religion serves the system well… both ways.

Yes religion like patriotism and many things can be used as a cry for war. But the real question is whether religion is intrinsically warlike and in most cases it is not. Christianity is not a war religion but it has been used by unscrupulous individuals for war. War comes from the human heart and mind.

reply to post by EnPassant

Yes religion like patriotism and many things can be used as a cry for war. But the real question is whether religion is intrinsically warlike and in most cases it is not. Christianity is not a war religion but it has been used by unscrupulous individuals for war. War comes from the human heart and mind.

Uhh, contrare wars in the name of God and religion are the biggest cause of death and misery on the planet.

Historiclaly speaking. But a few examples…

First and foremost in the Bible the Jews were commanded to exterminate every living thing in Canaan, you know.

The begining of thousands of years of Jewish Arab conflict. Theres the Hindus and Hindu Sikhs of Pakistan and India. The protestants and catholics in Ireland. The Eurepean crusades and still to this day they are ongoing in the Middle East. Christian vs. Islam.

Religious sects promote differences between culture and beliefs in order to start wars when the time comes. But you are right. Between those times religion is "peacefully indoctrinating" people just in case.

"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war."

See thru the veil.

C21H30O2I
A Timeline of Catastrophe
Darkness Descends on the Greco-Roman World


Caius Galerius, a shepherd who became a soldier, rose through the ranks of the army to become the penultimate pagan emperor of Rome. Appointed caesar by Diocletian in March 293, Galerius became augustus following his patron's abdication in May 305. Two years earlier Galerius had urged upon Diocletian a persecution of the Orthodox Church, the so-called "Great persecution". This ineffectual policy Galerius himself abandoned, issuing in his own name and that of his co-emperors Licinius and Constantine an Edict of Toleration, shortly before his death in May 311. The legalisation of the Church was reaffirmed by Constantine in the more celebrated Edict of Milan of 313. For the now legalized Church it was the beginning of payback time.

314 Immediately after its full legalisation, the Christian Church attacks non-Christians. The Council of Ancyra denounces the worship of goddess Artemis.


324 In Didyma, Minor Asia, The emperor Constantine sacks the Oracle of the god Apollo and tortures the pagan priests to death. He also evicts all non-Christian peoples from Mount Athos and destroys all the local Hellenic temples.

325 Council of Nicea.

The godman gets a promotion: 'Christ is Divine'.

Do you really think it all began with a sanctimonious Jewish wonder-worker, strolling about 1st century Palestine?

Thanks for the history lesson. However, all I am seeing is your problem with the events that happened because men as a result of man. All you did was recant the negative You still have yet to dispute any of the claims made by the Council of Nicea. Basically, you whole theory is based on one major assumption. That the Council of Nicea and Constantine had another agenda. You have no proof of this, and until you do it would be considered speculative slander.

You are making what psychologist call a fundamental attribution error.

The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to overestimate the effect of disposition or personality and underestimate the effect of the situation in explaining social behavior. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain the behavior of others. It does not explain interpretations of one's own behavior — where situational factors are more easily recognized and can thus be taken into consideration. This discrepancy between attributions for one's own behavior and for that of others is known as the actor–observer bias. As a simple example, consider a situation where Alice, a driver, is about to pass through an intersection. Her light turns green, and she begins to accelerate when another car drives through the red light and crosses in front of her. The fundamental attribution error may lead her to think that the driver of the other car was an unskilled or reckless driver. This will be an error if the other driver had a good reason for running the light, such as rushing a patient to the hospital. If Alice had been driving the other car, she would have understood that the situation called for speed at the cost of safety, but when seeing it from the outside she was inclined to believe that the behavior of the other driver reflected their fundamental nature (having poor driving skills or a reckless attitude).

Fundamental Attribution Error

For example Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and was therefore a Christian in 313.

Caesaropapism finally formalized the edict of tolerance which had been proclaimed by emperor Galerius in 311 AD. It was to be a decision with vast consequences: the Edict of Milan proclaimed the freedom of worship for all Christians. In January 313, Constantine legalized Christianity with an edict that read:
let this be so in order that the divine grace which we have experienced in such manifold ways, may always remain loyal to us and continue to bless us in all we undertake, for the welfare of the empire.

Christianity was to be tolerated and even supported by the State where conflict was not apparent. However, it was only one of many acceptable religions - Constantine, so superstitious that he feared offending any god, worshipped the sun as a deity, and was only accepted into the Christian Church on his death bed. Yet, within the space of seventy years, the Christian faith was to be declared the official religion of the Roman empire under an edict proclaimed by emperor Theodosius I on February 28, 380 AD.

Reference

Then you make the Council of Nicea to be some conspiracy based off disposition attributions made about the people involved rather than using a situational attribution as you should. Notice Constantine wasn't even the one who made Christianity the official religion, so why would he have been trying to control people through the use of the Bible when it wasn't even the official religion of Rome. There are fundamental attribution errors all throughout your argument.

Christianity is not a war religion

reply to post by EnPassant


It has been a war religion since the get go. The Christians have always lied – and one of their biggest lies remains that of "blaming the barbarians" for the destruction of ancient civilization which they themselves caused.

The melodrama is familiar enough: barbarians "pouring in" ... Rome sacked ... havoc wreaked everywhere. Words like "horde" and "onslaught" are bandied about, conjuring up images of a human flood of bloodthirsty and predatory warriors, hell-bent on rape and pillage. The only light, we are asked to believe, comes from the flickering lamps of Christian monks in remote fastnesses, keeping alive the dim flame of civilization until a bright new dawn, centuries into the future.

To put things in perspective, in 410, the Visigoths of Alaric (a Christian) pillaged Rome for precisely three days before withdrawing. A generation later, in 455, Gaiseric (a Christian) and his Vandals spent just fourteen days in the city, taking what they could.

The conventional 'wisdom' is a travesty, written by the winning side. The barbarians of the 3rd – 5th centuries AD – like the barbarians of the 1st century AD or 2nd century BC – had wanted a share of the good life, not the common ruination of everyone.

But the empire, for its part, had turned in on itself, had wasted its energies on the indulgences of a theocratic tyranny, had narrowed its vision, had ruined itself – a process that began with Constantine and his plans for a Christian dynasty. The One True Catholic and Orthodox Faith, made secure by its establishment as the state religion, expropriated for its own purposes more and more of the wealth of the empire. Yet ultimately it became indifferent to the fate of the empire; Holy Mother Church was all that mattered.

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

The manuscript evidence for the Bible is much more compelling than any other ancient document;

What load of garbage! More compelling? What does that even mean?

What about the tomes of the historical documentation of Josephus? Not compelling? How about Livy's History of Rome? Not compelling? The Documentation of Gallic Wars, by Julius Caesar? Not compelling?

As far as the New Testament being a documentation of truth, there is no supporting evidence for any of the biblical stories, and there are numerous, too numerous to mention, discrepancies in dates, lineage and narratives and obvious interpolations.

First off, why don't you go to the link I posted backing up my statement on a comment below it. Look at the chart and compare the difference Caesar is on the chart....sorry not even close bud do a bit more research on how the reliability of an ancient document is determined.

Josephus wrote all of his surviving works after his establishment in Rome (c. AD 71) under the patronage of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian. As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.[60] (Jews did not preserve the writings of Josephus because they considered him to be a traitor.[61]) There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of Josephus, of which 33 predate the 14th century, with two thirds from the Comnenoi period.[62] The earliest surviving Greek manuscript that contains the Testimonium is the 11th century Ambrosianus 370 (F 128), preserved in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which includes almost all of the second half of the Antiquities. [63] There are about 170 extant Latin translations of Josephus, some of which go back to the sixth century, and according to Louis Feldman have proven very useful in reconstructing the Josephus texts through comparisons with the Greek manuscripts, reconfirming proper names and filling in gaps.[64]

Josephus isn't close either

Just as big of mental disorder as n
Believing in lil magic space fairies.and reptillians...

Blahable
Just as big of mental disorder as n
Believing in lil magic space fairies.and reptillians...

edit on 16-11-2013 by Blahable because: (no reason given)

I would challenge that the God of the Bible is either more logical or at least as logical as your belief.

intrptr
reply to post by EnPassant

 

Yes religion like patriotism and many things can be used as a cry for war. But the real question is whether religion is intrinsically warlike and in most cases it is not. Christianity is not a war religion but it has been used by unscrupulous individuals for war. War comes from the human heart and mind.

Uhh, contrare wars in the name of God and religion are the biggest cause of death and misery on the planet.

Actually mosquitoes are the greatest cause of death (serious). I have already noted WW1, WW2, The war in China (1937), also add Stalin's purges etc. etc. etc. 100 million were killed in the 20th century by secular wars.

reply to post by C21H30O2I


You are missing the point. I am saying that Christianity is not intrinsically, ideologically war like. But it has been used as an excuse for war. The examples you point out are not a result of Christian values, they are using Christianity as an excuse for war.

reply to post by EnPassant


Now you're changing subjects (and we are both off topic).

beatbox
reply to post by undo

 

Again, I agree with you 100% but I kinda sense you're trying to give the politically correct answer...lol

If I claim that the voice in my head is from another source or from something other then me, (my inner voice)...wouldn't you consider that a type of mental illness?

I've had a theory, that armchair philosophers who absolutely suck at philosophizing become atheists / skeptics. Actually, it was another post that inspired that thought. I'll give you the example after. That just seemed like a good place to start, because it ties in with my other thought: In a way, you have a good point, OP. At least, I think it is a point that is worthy of discussion, and debate. Though this is very far from a simple issue, and tackles a number of Big Questions for humanity, all at once. On the other hand there is a part of me that feels that if a person can't tell what the major differences are between religion, and classical forms of "mental illness" involving delusion, that person very seriously needs some help with their critical thinking skills. I truly mean that. And not offensively, or insultingly. But I don't know any other way to put it.


1- What is mental illness? Really-- what is it? Can you answer that for me? Most laypersons have a very poor understanding of what "crazy" really is, often relying on fictional stereotypes, and the occasional shallow portrayal in the media.

"Mental Illness" if you're going strictly by diagnostic critera, is, if you'll pardon a small pun, pretty insanely wide-spread. Depression. Anxiety. ADD. Learning disorders. Eating disorders. Impulse disorders. Addictions. Compulsive disorders. OCD. Sexual compulsion. "Kleptomania," ODD, Sociopathic disorders. Etc. By the diagnosis criteria for these and more, and overwhelming majority of us has one mild form of "mental illness" or another.


Now commonly, when someone thinks of "mental illness" they think of the colloquial "crazy," and the stereotypes surrounding it. Which is more along the lines of schizoprhenia or some type of delusional disorder. And really, I think that is the question you're trying to ask, in more appropriate terminology: Should religion count as a delusional disorder?



2- But religious beliefs do not develop in the same way as your typical delusion, which seems to manifest quite spontaneously, and by their own rules. (i.e. I suddenly believe that the television is sending me secret messages from the CIA, because my next door neighbor is an alphabet agency operative and is trying to control my mind with some electromagnetic device.)


Proper delusions can be shared by more than one person. But this is supposedly more rare, and unless you can argue that religions count, delusions have never been documented as being shared by millions of otherwise seemingly rational people.


This is why I made the comment about critical thinking skills. Because IMO this one is pretty obvious. Religions are the result of tradition. And, according to many of the religions, themselves, actual people and events. Just about any christian will tell you that Jesus Christ lived, and was a real man, even if some of the other events of the bible (adam and evn in the garden of eden, for example) are allegorical. Now, you may not believe that Jesus Christ existed, historically, as a man. But millions of people do. Because other people following thousands of years of tradition, and a book written around the historical time of those alleged events do also believe.


Now as I said, maybe you don't believe he existed, because no one can prove it. But neither can you prove that he did not exist. Therefore, what you're really asking, is whether trust (or gullibility / naivete depending on your perspective) should be considered a mental illness. And I think the obvious answer there is "no." People believe what they're told by others, all the time. Often without proof. Science has almost made a religion of it, all their own. Have you ever seen proof of the big bang? I understand there is some minor evidence of this. But most of us have read about such evidence in books... as opposed to actually experiencing it for ourselves. We take others at their word. So I don't think believing the words of others, or really even being overly trusting, or gullible should be thought of as "mental illness."

3- I should have mentioned this earlier (though I sort of touched on it) but "mental illness" is very much a relative thing. What is the norm? How far outside the norm does a deviation go? I think the further this deviation, the more likely we are to call it "mental illness." By this token, such a definition does not apply to religious belief... because it is highly "normal" even if some people find it very strange, due to differing views.

4- I suggest there are activities which under most conditions would be considered a sign of "mental illness" yet because of tradition, is not. Lying and manipulating people for one's own amusement, for example. That borders on the mindset of the pathalogical liar, sociopathic personality, borderline personality, etc. Yet people often do this for the sake of "practical jokes." We manipulate our children, by teaching them about Santa, and the Tooth Fairy, etc. But this is all okay because of traditions in our society.

Now here is the comment that inspired my saying that IMO failed armchair philosophers become atheists and skeptics (and before i get death threats, I'm not saying that's how all atheists / skeptics start... just that some failed philosophers may end up there by default):

EnemyOfTheSane
Dont you see this is why wars are fought globally ? ... the view you share with many others . That your god is true but other gods are a lie ........ they are all lies .... no god would witness this life of desperation, i am a man and i have more heart , more love , more passion than all of your gods put together , and so do you .

Religion is in the mind , it is a case of being told a story and spending the rest of your life worrying wether it is true or not .

If god , any so called god was real , then i seriously doubt we would be able to die at all since the existance of death alone would undo most of his/her/its so called "plans" .

1- No, most modern wars are fought over money and power.



2- Compassionate god? Assuming there is one, unless we have omniscience, we can not truly understand what is for the greatest good. A poor example, perhaps: But what about someone dying of a serious illness. They are suffering. Killing them may end their suffering. Killing (and death, generally) are often seen as "bad." A simple mind, seeing only "death / killing is bad" would miss the fact that the ill person's death may actually be a blessing to them.

Overly simplistic, and there's probably a better example, but I hope you get what I mean. Unless you can see all the angles, you can't necessarily understand how someone who does see every little angle (an omniscient god), would see things differently.




3- One true god? Well, maybe there is one way, and the rest are wrong. Or maybe, they're all right, and they're all the same god under different names. Maybe knowing how humanity is, it was set up this way, so that there were many paths to god-- knowing that humans tend to have a very limited scope, and tend to be very culturally biased... maybe if there was only one way offered, billions would miss out on a spiritual path?

Maybe it's a test to see how we treat each other, or to teach us a lesson?




4- Death alone would undo his plans? That was actually the comment that inspired what I said above, due to its extreme short-sightedness. You do realize that opinion only works from the perspective of the non-believer, by which physical death is the end of life, right? In other words, it only works out that way from a atheist perspective.
To the religious, physical death is not the end of life. Therefore, what you wrote does not apply at all. To the religious, we continue this life after our physical bodies die. It's only our physical possesions we can't take with us. So how would that negate anything let alone everything?




5- Which reminds me of another point I should have added above. Many people have had "Near Death Experiences," where they are pronounced dead, and come back, with various memories of strange experiences. There is quite a lot of literature out there about this. And this is one more piece of potential proof of "something else" beyond the world we can see, and the rules we believe the world to run by. Of course, skeptics can claim that we simply don't understand what's going on, and this could be a brain phenomenon. And maybe it is. But neither is proven.




6- Religion has done some harm to society. No doubt. Any organized group with strong opinions allowed to amass enough power will usually do so. But religions, and spirituality have also done a lot of good for people. And that you suggest they should be eradicated is somewhat offensive.

I believe in some things I can not see or prove. Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to breed? I'd personally like it if the opposite happened. If the genetic line of those who lack imagination, or faith should be allowed to dwindle, and maybe even the extremists on the other side of the coin, only leaving people like myself-- closer to the middle. But I know that any forcible version of this would not be fair to those involved.

I may consider some of your views just as harmful to humanity as you see religion. But does that mean they should be "eradicated?"

beatbox

Cuervo

I don't believe in the "NWO" and I think most people who talk about it believe in something with no proof. I don't think all conspiracy theorists are nuts because I'm sure some of them have had personal experiences they can't prove to others yet they know happened.

I personally believe in divinity and have had personal experience with the other side (constantly) therefore I am basing my knowledge on more evidence and proof than most conspiracy theorists have.

If you don't believe in the NWO, then what do you think about these men of power calling for it?

1- Just to be clear, "New World Order" is a pretty generic term. What else should a more recent change in the "order" of the world be called? Despite being generic, many conspiracy theorists have attached a very specific set of notions... a dogma, if you will... that they ascribe to "The NWO" which they see as a very specific group, despite little to no proof that it actually is. But more to the point of what you're asking....



2- I'd say that's other men, talking about a "New World Order" in those vids. I can go to youtube right now and pull up ten thousand videos of men just like that, talking about Jesus, and God. I'd say the evidence is about equally strong, or equally flimsy (depending on your view. )

And likewise, quite appropriately, many people will consider you insane for believing in an NWO that you can't see.

beatbox
You say you don't believe in the NWO and its not real...but how can you say that when you clearly see these men in power "talking" about it, or pushing for it. I posted vids of it coming straight from the horses mouth...it doesn't matter if it just a common phrase or the real thing...these men want it. Again it brings me to ask why is it ok for these men in power to speak about it but when the average person brings it up..it's a mental illness. I just showed that the NWO is real and powerful men want it...but can you prove certain gods or demi gods of religions are real?

You didn't show that. At all. You showed some powerful men using a common phrase. I can show you lots of common phrases among powerful men. Should I start speculation that "The Economy" is secret society, since these guys are always talking about it?

I'm glad we found an appropriate analogy here, that will perhaps teach you, if you'll let it. Your thinking these vids constitute "proof" IS, in fact, very similar to what the religious are doing. Like I said, I can show you a lot of vids of powerful men "pushing for" Jesus, and Armageddon and the second coming.... but that doesn't necessarily prove them true.

reply to post by EnPassant


Yes, I understand but Christians do and will ignore their values, when they need too. There is a Christian militia, called The Lions of the Canyon. Right now in Syria. and even some Alawite and Sunni Muslims have joined them.

There are Christians who do not believe in turning the left cheek, but in their turn enter into the battle of survival that forces itself on all Syrians, regardless of their religious background.

There's a poster on the website, expressing an absolute spirit of Christian militancy.
And also

A general call — Whoever believes in Me, even though he dies, he lives

There's also a donate button, to rescue and save Christians lives.

Christians Raise Arms To Fight Holy War Against Muslims

Throughout its two-thousand-year history, Christians have justified, rationalized, restrained, and informed the act of war and the conduct of warfare. They have, in various times and by various means, both upheld and departed from biblical standards, and both ecclesiastical and secular leaders have appealed to Christianity's teachings for personal and national guidance and support.

The apostle Paul wrote, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18). Yet, history and headlines provide ample proof that "peace" cannot always be the Christian response to the evil that people and nations perpetrate.

Onward Christian Soldiers?
Christian Perspectives on War

A paper, By Timothy J. Demy, Th.D.
Commander, Chaplain Corps, U.S. Navy

Just saying....